War Poetry: Impacts on British Understanding of World War One - Central Washington ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Central Washington University ScholarWorks@CWU All Undergraduate Projects Undergraduate Student Projects Spring 2019 War Poetry: Impacts on British Understanding of World War One Holly Fleshman fleshmanh@cwu.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/undergradproj Part of the European History Commons, Military History Commons, and the Social History Commons Recommended Citation Fleshman, Holly, "War Poetry: Impacts on British Understanding of World War One" (2019). All Undergraduate Projects. 104. https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/undergradproj/104 This Undergraduate Project is brought to you for free and open access by the Undergraduate Student Projects at ScholarWorks@CWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Undergraduate Projects by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@CWU. For more information, please contact scholarworks@cwu.edu.
Table of Contents
Abstract……………………………………………………………………….. 2
Body………..………………………………………………………………….. 3
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………. 20
Bibliography ………………………………………………………………….. 24
End Notes ……………………………………………………………………... 28
1Abstract
The military and technological innovations deployed during World War I ushered in a
new phase of modern warfare. Newly developed technologies and weapons created an
environment which no one had seen before, and as a result, an entire generation of soldiers and
their families had to learn to cope with new conditions of shell shock. For many of those
affected, poetry offered an outlet to express their thoughts, feelings and experiences. For Great
Britain, the work of Rupert Brooke, Siegfried Sassoon, Wilfred Owen and Robert Graves have
been highly recognized, both at the time and in the present. Newspaper articles and reviews
published by prominent companies of the time make it clear that each of these poets, who
expressed strong opinions and feelings toward the war, deeply influenced public opinion. At the
start of the war, Rupert Brooke’s poetry, and those like him, pushed the public to favor Britain’s
involvement in the war because of their favorable and patriotic attitude towards it. Such
patriotism sparked images of the way a soldier should behave and look and inserted the idea that
the fate of the nation is everything. As the war progressed though, the poets began to express a
darker twist on the country’s involvement. This dissenting opinion from poets like Sassoon,
Owen and Graves incited irritation and anger from the British public because of their descriptive
and shocking contents. Furthermore, their poetry created a new memory of the war which
encapsulated its darkest, most painful realities. The influences of Sassoon, Owen, and Graves
lasted much longer than did that of poets like Brooke and have shaped the memory of World
War I in British history.
2In the years leading up to World War One most Europeans believed that a general war
would not occur in 1914. After the gruesome Franco-Prussian War and the success of diplomacy,
Europeans were inclined to believe that war was too destructive and too irrational to bring up
again.1 These ideas were shattered by the events of the summer of 1914 and soon the world was
engulfed in a new kind of industrial war in the trenches. This war was new because it employed
extensively large innovations such as barbed wire, the machine gun, exploding shells, and tanks.
Such a surge in technology changed the context of the war and both sides therefore found
themselves having to dig in and remain locked in a tactical stalemate in the trenches. The war in
the trenches was exceptionally brutal and resulted in far higher casualty rates than in previous
conflicts because of their high rates of diseases.2 These included nephritis, pneumonia, trench
foot, and overall exhaustion.3 To make the trenches worse, the lack of movement meant that men
were consistently being bombarded with bullets and bombs, which contributed to consistently
higher mortality rates. Such cruel conditions had a profound effect on the minds of young
soldiers and made it difficult for many to express their feelings and discuss their experiences.4
Paul Fussell, a well renowned cultural and literary historian who wrote The Great War and
Modern Memory, captured the spirit of these feelings by saying “Dawn has never recovered from
what the Great War did to it.”5 For some, such as the Englishmen Rupert Brooke, Siegfried
Sassoon, Wilfred Owen and Robert Graves, these feelings were expressed in the form of poetry.
Each of these poets shared their feelings towards the war in descriptive and persuasive language.
For Brooke, this was patriotic, and reflected nationalistic tendencies seen at the start of the war.
For Sassoon, Owen and Graves, their poems dissented from Great Britain’s choice to remain in
the conflict. They showed this through the use of graphic imagery, and sarcastic language. These
blunt, negative attitudes, and anti-war sentiments pushed the British public to recognize many of
3the difficult experiences that soldiers had to endure. As a result, their readers formed a much
more negative opinion of British involvement in the war.
To understand the impacts of poetry on support for the war, it is important to understand
British perceptions of the war at its start. According to Modris Eksteins in Rites of Spring: The
Great War and the Birth of the Modern Age, getting involved in the war for the British in 1914
was a direct response to the modernism of German ideology at the time.6 He makes the argument
that German ideology threatened concepts of British order which was engrained in their identity.
As a result, Eksteins argued that these ideals framed the Germans as ever changing and
irresponsible in the eyes of the British government and people.7 This indicated that the war was
not just about maintaining British political, military and economic power but rather was a moral
imperative. According to Eksteins, the British saw it as their duty to inform those they deemed
“uncivilized” or ignorant of the social order of the “rules of civilized social conduct.”8 Anderson
D. Araujo agrees with this concept of British morality fueling inclinations towards war, as he
says that Germans were consistently de-humanized by the British media in the years leading up
to the conflict. In fact, one newspaper article published in The Manchester Guardian in August
of 1914 entitled “Public Opinion” actually referred to German actions as “immoral,” and
described the German Chancellor as “pagan,” while asserting that their government was “an
affront to the moral forces in the world.”9 The strong, morally bound language in this article
demonstrates the inclination of the British media to dehumanize the Germans. Furthermore, the
use of words like “pagan” and “immoral” corroborates Eksteins idea that the British likely felt a
moral and nationalistic obligation to fight the Germans.
Public opinion at the start of the war was also shown by the willingness of young men to
volunteer for the armed forces, and the British entered the war with an army entirely made up of
4volunteers. These volunteers in the British Expeditionary force first met with the Germans in the
small Belgium town of Mons and were defeated quickly with great loss of life.10 Even though
this army was defeated early on, it still serves as evidence of the willingness of many to go to
war in defense of their country and beliefs. In a September 1914 edition of The Manchester
Guardian, reports suggested that in one day alone, 1,000 volunteers from Ulster, Ireland, enlisted
in active service.11 The beginning of the war featured a generally positive opinion of the conflict
both in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is likely that this favorable opinion stemmed from
the heavy presence of patriotism in Britain at the time. Such patriotism stemed from a number of
different British-centric ideals. First, the war began at the same time that Britain was practicing,
and succeeding in, its imperialistic pursuits. In fact, in 1914, Britain maintained colonial rule
over countries in Asia, Africa, Australia, North America and South America.12 Maintaining
control over the people in each of the colonies often created both xenophobic and elitist ideas
about British superiority. These patriotic concepts would then translate into patriotic and
nationalistic views that were held by both the British government and its people.13 Another
contributing factor to British patriotism was the unification of and the rise of Germany after the
Franco-Prussian War. In defeating France, Germany established itself as a military threat to
Great Britain, thus sparking a backlash to German identity as barbaric. Furthermore, with
German determination to build the high seas fleet, there was much fear over their strength in
Great Britain.14 In making Germany the enemy, Great Britain utilized patriotism as a way to
delineate itself from them. As a result, it was patriotic to maintain British dominance over
Germany.
The optimism and patriotism that was present in the minds of the British public before
World War I was present across many platforms, including that of literature. A number of British
5poets expressed these ideals early on and published pro-war poetry. Of these, Rupert Brooke
became the most famous. Much of Brooke’s poetry preceded that of Owen, Sassoon, and Graves
during the war’s early stages and, as a result, he is a fitting poet to discuss first.15 Brooke came
from an upper-class family and attended the prestigious Rugby boarding school as a boy where
his father was the headmaster.16 At Rugby, he wrote historical poems such as “The Bastille” and
“The Pyramids,” which both won prizes, and he began writing for competitions in the
Westminster Gazette.17 In his college years, Brooke found himself at King’s College, Cambridge,
where he joined the Apostles, a secret organization.18 It is at King’s College that Brooke became
active in drama and became more politically outspoken.19 Both of these traits are evident in his
war poetry, and Brooke entered the Great War as a soldier in 1914 with a particularly optimistic
view of British involvement.
One instance of such optimism is Rupert Brooke’s sonnet The Soldier. In this poem,
Brooke produces five sonnets starting with “Peace.” It opens with the idea that Brooke is in fact
thankful for the timing of his life because he gets to be part of the war. He suggests that the
World War is calling his generation out of their sleep and to action so that they may take the
place of the older generation. He ends the first section by saying that those who do not fight for
what is right are “half-men,” which signifies that he feels the war is justified.20 Brooke continues
with the sonnet entitled “Safety” in which he asserts that even though he is participating in a
violent and dangerous war, he still feels safe in knowing that he has fought for Britain. He states
“We have gained a peace unshaken by pain forever. War knows no power. Safe shall be my
going, secretly armed against all death’s endeavor.”21 This excerpt suggests that Brooke
understands the dangers of going to war. In fact, he describes making peace with the thought of
an early death to the war. These attitudes reflect his belief in the rightness of Britain’s choice to
6fight, and his willingness to be a part of that choice. If he had believed it unnecessary, he would
have condemned this rather than advocated for it.
The third and fourth sonnets are titled “The Dead” and, in the first of the two, Brooke
suggests that even those who have died are serving a greater purpose: defending their country
and its ideals. He says “honour has come back, as a king, to earth” and “nobleness walks in our
ways again,” because the British are willing to stand up for their ideals of morality and
righteousness.22 Such sentiments combined with the romanticism of death in the second of the
sonnets make it clear Brooke feels that even death is for the greater cause of defending British
concepts of morality, thus solidifying his favorable view of English involvement. In his final
sonnet, “The Soldier,” Brooke speaks one of the most famous poetic lines to come out of the
war. It starts, “If I should die, think only this of me: that there’s some corner of a foreign field
that is forever England” and finishes with the concept of “an English Heaven.”23 These patriotic
words make it clear that the poet felt highly of his country and its decision to fight. This is likely
due to Brooke’s identity as an “Englishman.” His identity is tightly bound to his country and
places high importance on maintaining and fighting for “English” values. In Brooke’s mind then,
the death he gives for his country is justified and that even his death will embody the English
wartime efforts forever. Even in death, Brooke is doing his duty as an Englishman by allowing a
part of England, his death, to remain in that foreign field forever. In this way, even death furthers
Britain’s goals.
While the poem displays a distinctly positive outlook on English involvement, the British
public’s response to it exemplified their agreement, as well as showing the impact a poem can
have on perceptions of the war’s meaning. After the poem was published in 1915, the Dean of St.
Paul’s cathedral in London read it on Easter Sunday. The London Times also reprinted it and that
7garnered mass public approval.24 A contemporary newspaper article written about Brooke said
that the sonnets were “incomparable” and the expression of his feelings on the war within it
would “be shared by many thousands of young men” who would be entering combat as well.25 It
is clear in this official review of the sonnets that their content was important for English readers,
who were often middle to upper class.26 In asserting that soldiers would resonate with its
contents, the author is suggesting that Brooke’s poems would create a special sense of national
community as they exemplified common feelings that people had at the time.
The fact that Brooke died shortly after this poem was published seems to have further
impacted English opinion on the war, as Brooke became a sort of martyr. He exemplified
everything that a good Englishman should be; young, eager, and willing to die for his belief in
British rule. The newspaper article mentioned above praised Brooke for serving with grace even
though he was aware of the likelihood of death. The article suggested that Brooke knew
England’s “beauty and majesty” and died with “absolute conviction of the rightness of his
country’s cause and a heart devoid of hate for fellow-men.”27 These words and the praise
suggested Brooke achieved the ultimate aim of the Englishman; to give his life for his belief in
English ideals. In fact, the concept of the fight being “righteous” is a common thread amongst
multiple contemporary newspaper articles about the war. The media praise that he received, also
shows that there was a popular attitude that it was honorable for young men to fight and die in
defense of their country. An article in The Manchester Guardian shared these sentiments, saying
that Brooke “answered the call like thousands of other young men” even though he knew he
would die and he “looked unshrinking at the prospect.”28 It becomes clear here as well, that
media at the time held a positive opinion of his role as an Englishman and soldier. His poems
clearly appealed to the public as well as shown by the fact that these articles romanticize and
8sensationalize his sacrifice and his work and they were heavily distributed throughout Great
Britain.29 Each of these articles used Brooke as a picture of what a soldier should be; an
Englishman willing to die for their country’s ideals and who would prompt others to believe they
should act in the same manner.
While Brooke’s time in the war was short, he was an important figure of the time. His
poetry is still some of the most renowned of the war and appears in numerous collections from
both then and now.30 Furthermore, his patriotism demonstrated a wider attitude in Britain that it
was the duty of an Englishman to fight for their country’s ideals, even if that meant death. This
attitude was later lost as the war claimed massive casualties and soldiers faced extensive mental
health issues developed from shell shock. As a result, Brooke, and his poetry, represented an
innocence and optimism that was soon lost. It soon gave way to realism, gruesome descriptions,
and satire which sought to demonstrate dissatisfaction with the war. Brooke’s patriotism points
to the end of an era and the beginning of a more critical view by subsequent soldier poets.
Thousands of other British soldiers held the same ideals of optimism and patriotism at the
start of the war and this included Siegfried Sassoon. Like Brooke, Sassoon was born into a
wealthy family. He attended Marlborough College, Claire College and Cambridge University but
never finished his degree.31 Even before the war, Sassoon became a writer and he published his
first book, The Daffodil Murderer, in 1913.32 He joined the army just before the war began but
broke his arm and could not join the fight until 1915. Once in combat, Sassoon became well
known for taking risks and fighting without hesitation, which led him to receive the Military
Cross for bravery.33 Even so, the shocking reality of the war heavily impacted Sassoon. In fact,
some even suggested that the “bravery” for which he was honored, was almost suicidal.34 These
observations indicate that Sassoon was facing a dilemma about the war and his part in it.
9At this point in Sassoon’s narrative, he begins to shift from the optimism of Brooke and
towards a more critical outlook on British involvement. In 1917 one of Sassoon’s close friends
was killed in battle. The death marks a turning point for Sassoon where his defiance of the war
became more outspoken. Rather than take risks on the battlefield, Sassoon decided to take one
that would impact more than just himself. In 1917, after his friend’s death, he wrote a letter to his
commanding officer that he later published in The Manchester Guardian. It outlined his
objections to the war in an “act of willful defiance of military authority” because he believed the
war was being “deliberately prolonged by those who have the power to end it.”35 At the time that
he wrote the letter, there were still many people who held patriotic views like that of Brooke.
Sassoon saw this patriotism as a falsehood and expressed his distaste for it. He stated that those
at home did not understand the experience of being on the front and that he would no longer be a
part of the pro-war lies that were being spread.36 It is likely that Sassoon referred to the gruesome
and violent realities of the trenches. Sassoon’s attitude has clearly changed. He no longer
advocated for the continuation of fighting and even reached the stage of active defiance.37
Another important point is that, because of his fame as a poet, the letter recieved extensive
attention. The idea that a decorated soldier known for his bravery would openly defy his orders
to speak out against the war caught media attention. In doing so, Sassoon captivated a large
audience of people who also viewed the war unfavorably and his choice to publish poems soon
after this letter increased his impact on the public. People were anxious to hear what he would
say next.
One reason for Sassoon’s notoriety was his publication of a collection of poems entitled
The Old Huntsman in 1917. This collection appeared in suggested reading and gift lists in both
The Times and The Manchester Guardian in 1917 and received high critical acclaim for its
10detailed descriptions. The Times Literary Supplement praised the work saying that Sassoon had a
gift and that they could not wait to see what he would do with that gift.38 The review said that the
book succeeded in portraying the “most sordid and horrible experiences in the world” in a way
that no other poet could. The author went even further by saying that the collection of poems
prompted the reader to say “yes this is going on; and we are sitting here watching it” which gave
them the desire to leave their place in the audience and stand up against the war.39 This is a
profoundly important point to make. Not only was the book important enough for The Times
Literary Supplement to feature it, but it also prompted major praise from literary critics.
Furthermore, the book’s ability to call its readers to action demonstrates the effect it had on
public opinion. This sentiment was shared after Sassoon’s. The author of his tribute article for
The Times said that the war poems in The Old Huntsman “left one most disgusted with the
horrors of the war even fifty years later.”40 This review demonstrates the fact that Sassoon’s
poems impacted opinions on the war and continued to do so with Britain’s memory of it in
subsequent decades. The poems prompted a new outlook on the war, the community and the
people.
While newspaper reviews of Sassoon’s poems show that they had a profound effect
shaping public opinion to oppose the war, his poetic ideas also received some pushback, and
even resulted in a 1921 criminal trial for blasphemy. John Glover published one of Sassoon’s
poems entitled “Stand to: Good Friday Mourne” in The Maoriland Worker, a labor weekly in
New Zealand. The publication halfway around the world demonstrated the breadth of Sassoon’s
popularity. The poem describes a morning in which a soldier in the trenches wakes up and prays
to Jesus to be wounded. The poems states,
Up the trench to our bogged front line.
11Rain had fallen the whole damned night.
O Jesus, send me a wound to-day,
And I’ll believe in Your bread and wine,
And get my bloody old sins washed white!41
The soldier would rather be wounded than go on another day in the war. Such a comment
demonstrates the deep psychological toll that the war had. The trial was run on the basis that
blasphemy was “any contemptuous, reviling, or ludicrous matter relating to God, Jesus or the
Bible or to the formularies of the Church of England as by law established.”42 Glover was
acquitted in 1922 when the jury decided that the poem was not created for the blasphemy of the
church but rather, was a realistic description of the life of a soldier in the war.43 Even though
Glover was acquitted, the fact that this issue went to trial is important. While the trial was in
New Zealand, it was still connected to Great Britain as the trial was run on a definition of
blasphemy that referred to the Church of England. Also, the fact that the trial was reported upon
by a major English newspaper further makes the point that it affected British hearts and minds.
The final verdict suggesting that the poem was in fact an accurate depiction of a soldier’s
experience in the war exemplifies the point that the negative experience Sassoon’s poetry
portrayed was what public opinion agreed to be truth. As a result, it can be seen that the poems
of Sassoon impacted public views of the war as an affirmation of people’s feelings.
Siegfried Sassoon exemplified a noticeable shift in British ideals of the war. His early
patriotism and bravery demonstrate a link between his experience and that of Rupert Brooke.
Both demonstrate a willingness to fight and die for their country. Both, at least at first, exemplify
the workings of a proper Englishman who fights for his country’s ideals. Yet, Sassoon takes a
different turn. After the death of his friend, he could no longer remain quiet about his opinion of
12British involvement in the war and he chose to speak out against it. This turn of events begs the
question of whether or not Brooke would have likely remained patriotic or turned unconvinced
of the war’s righteousness as well had he lived longer. Regardless, Sassoon’s poetry contains a
tone that was largely absent to the voice of soldier poets before him. He uses satire, like in
“Stand to: Good Friday Mourne” to appeal to his audience and indicate his distaste of Britain’s
involvement. This shift is important as its one of the first times we see open defiance of the war.
Furthermore, Sassoon’s past as a patriot demonstrates that even those who were very sure if
Britain’s place in the war began to feel disillusioned from the pro-war sentiments that they
originally believed.
Sassoon’s transition from patriotic poet to anti-war satire was much rougher than that of
the next poet; Wilfred Owen. Unlike Siegfried Sassoon, Owen was born into a middle-class
family where his father worked on the railroads. Owen’s family consistently struggled with
money and the family had to move a number of times.44 Owen began writing poetry in primary
school and eventually got into London University but was unable to pay the bill to attend.
Instead, Owen decided to teach at Berlitz School of English in France.45 Owen moved back to
England and enlisted in the armed forces in 1915 and was wounded in battle three times by
1917.46 During his time in battle, Owen experienced the horrors of the war and was diagnosed
with shell shock. He was sent to Craiglockhart War Hospital for treatment where he met Sassoon
and the two sparked a close friendship.47 It is this meeting that leads Owen to be the next poet of
discussion. Both Owen and Sassoon held a similar outlook on the war at the time of their
meeting. They were both exceptionally effected by the horrors that they witnessed in the
trenches, as demonstrated by their shell shock, and no longer felt the same patriotic connection to
their country’s decision to remain in the fight. Owen signifies a sharp difference to that of
13Sassoon thought because of his descriptive ability. While Sassoon’s work may have impacted
Owen’s, he did not experience nearly as much trouble or push back as Sassoon did. Where
Sassoon chose to use satire, Owen employed extensive imagery. As a result, Owen was able to
capture a wider audience’s attention without receiving as much anger in return.
One reason that Owen’s poems did not experience as much push back is the fact that
Owen was killed in battle just a week before the armistice and much of his poetry was published
posthumously.48 This meant that the poetry came after the war ended, when the British public
was more warry of the war. Many of the obituary articles written for Owen later reminiscence
about his death and ponder what the future of poetry might have been had the armistice not
ended two weeks earlier.49 Regardless, Owen’s poems resemble Sassoon’s in their criticism of
the war. For instance, in “Anthem for Doomed Youth” Owen states,
What passing-bells for these who die as cattle?
Only the monstrous anger of the guns.
Only the stuttering rifles' rapid rattle
Can patter out their hasty orisons.50
Owen’s words describe those who go to war to fight for Britain as cattle. Doing so suggests that
they are only being raised for slaughter, which demonstrates his skepticism of the war’s motives.
Owen also refers to the guns of the war as “Monstrous” and angry which demonstrates his
disdain for the machines of war that he encountered. These words differ greatly from the
patriotic words of Brooke, who made even death sound beautiful, and are brutally honest. Even
so, Owen is not employing sarcasm or humor to get his point across like Sassoon. Instead, he is
descriptive and frank with the reader about his reality. These literary choices are what set Owen
apart from both Brooke and Sassoon.
14Even after his death, Owen’s choice to write in such a manner attracted audiences and
prompted his readers to sympathize with his unfavorable view of the war. One example of this
concept can be seen in an article written two years after his death. In this article, a writer for The
Times suggested that many war poets attempted to portray disenchantment with the war but none
succeeded in the way that Owen did. He did so with more “compassion for the disenchanted”
than any other poet and “revealed the soul of the soldier as no one else has revealed it.” The
article ended by saying his work “will not easily die.”51
Of particular importance concerning this impact was Owen’s poem “Dulce Et Decorum
Est.” This poem, published posthumously, describes the horror of the trenches by outlining what
it was like to be in a gas attack. These descriptions are agonizingly graphic and portray the
feeling of sadness and dread that many soldiers felt on the front lines. Owen describes the scene
thusly:
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.52
The description here is graphic and provides the reader with an image of run down and tired men
who give little attention to the life-threatening conditions that they are under. These words are
honest and clear about the experience of young men throughout the war. There is no glory in
these words. There is no hero. There is only nameless men who are already in many ways gone.
The most famous part of this poem is the final words in which Owen declares:
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
15Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,—
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.53
In these words, Owen is making a very pointed statement at the British government and people,
that they do not in fact know the horrors of war. Owen is asserting that if they did, they would
not distribute pro-war propaganda that glorifies a soldier’s death. Furthermore, he is establishing
a disdain for the false nationalism that so many had at the start of the war.
While there were not many direct reviews of the poem at the time it was published, its
impact can be seen in the references people made to the poem to protest issues of the war. For
instance, in 1929, The Manchester Guardian published an article in which former officers of the
World War appealed for the right to work. At the end of this article, the former officers quoted
the final lines of the poem and then suggested “we are afraid that rather too much emphasis has
been laid on the honour of the dead to the detriment to those who were the comrades of those
who died.”54 While the article does not specify the writer’s opinion of the poem nor mention the
poem by name, the circumstances and analysis of that quote suggest a correlation between
Owen’s writing and the soldier’s intent. In speculating on the misplaced worth of the dead over
that of the living, the speaker is referencing many underlying themes of Owen’s poem which
question the role of nationalism in forcing men to die for their country. Furthermore, in
suggesting that the country is overemphasizing the dead, the speaker is connecting war attitudes
of former soldiers in Great Britain with that of Owen’s, thus creating a sense of community in
16these ideals. It is clear then that Owen’s poem impacted these people’s opinion of the war and
how they perceive Britain’s role in it after the fact as they were willing to use his poetry as a
political tool and identified it with their own feelings as well.
Owen’s ability to relate to his reader is a strength that sets him apart from Brooke and
Sassoon. His poems were brutally honest and deeply critical of the war, and yet, Owen was able
to maintain high levels of public approval. The difference here is that Sassoon’s opposition to the
war was more politically divisive than was Owen’s. Where Sassoon angered people with satirical
verse, Owen paid respect to the dead with his description. He in many ways, memorialized the
death of so many soldiers while showing disdain for the reason that they died. In this way, Owen
was able to maintain his anti-war narrative, and also maintain the support of those who were
originally willing to lay down their life for their country, like the former officers who quoted his
poem.55 He showed disdain for the war, without making the reader feel attacked in the way that
Sassoon’s readers might. Owen therefore marked an important shift from Sassoon and Brooke’s
writing as he wrote about the struggle of the soldier in a unifying way rather than a critical one.
At the same time, he was much more obvious than the next poet up for discussion: Robert
Graves.
Like Owen, Graves was born into a middle-class family. His father was a school-master
in Wimbledon and his mother came from a wealthy German family. After attending a number of
schools, Graves gained a scholarship to Charterhouse where he gained a love of poetry.56 Graves
decided to join the British army when the war broke out in 1914 and was a part of the Royal
Welsh Fusiliers.57 Like Sassoon and Owen, Graves suffered from shell shock and in 1916 he was
badly wounded by shrapnel at the Battle of the Somme and had to remain in England until the
17end of the war.58 Even though he spent this time on leave, Graves saw his fair share of wartime
atrocities, which he shared in his poems.
Grave’s poems, like Sassoon’s and Owen’s are some of the most well-known to come
from this era. In many ways, Graves’ poems were unique from the other three as he is the least
aggressive in expressing his distaste for the war. Instead, one feels the presence of the war in his
psyche throughout his poems, regardless of their intended content. For instance, poems like “The
Next War,” published in his book Fairies and Fusiliers, outline Graves’ worries and warnings
about society’s tendency toward war. He warns that young kids who fight for play and imagine
war are doomed to repeat the mistakes of their elders and go to war as well saying,
So hold your nose against the stink
And never stop too long to think.
Wars don't change except in name;
The next one must go just the same,
And new foul tricks unguessed before
Will win and justify this War.59
Graves is establishing that he has a negative opinion towards war in general as he believes that
they are all the same. This tactic allows Graves to speak out against the war without pointing to
the British government as the problem. This broad net approach is safer in many ways to that of
Sassoon as it is easily relatable for readers and still not necessarily unpatriotic. The book
containing this poem was widely publicized, suggested in multiple newspapers, and was said to
have thrown the entire poetry era into a new perspective. A review by The Manchester Guardian
suggested that this book, and the poetry it contained, was a delight to read, showed great dignity,
and proved that he was one of the most interesting of the new poets at the time.60 This submits
18that he indeed was very important in poetry for the era and that poems like these were getting
attention. This also suggests that the content of these poems was presenting some new ideals
about the war which others may not exemplify. Such a concept presents the point that his work
did in fact impact people’s outlook on the war, if only to give a fresh perspective.
While these early poems were very important, it was one of Graves’ later works which
drew attention and impacted perceptions of the war. This was the publication of his
autobiography entitled Goodbye to All That in which he finally faced the issues of the war and its
effect on him. In this book he goes into depth on his experiences with the conflict and how it has
impacted him physically and mentally. He also goes into detail on his post-war trauma and
comes to terms with the long-term effects of what he went through.61 Graves received rave
reviews for this book. One review in The Observer suggested that the reviewer would not be
surprised if fifty or a hundred years from then the book would be considered one of the greatest
works of the first three decades of the twentieth century.62 Such a review of the work shows its
importance and popularity at the time. Another review suggested that the book was one of the
few autobiographies of the time that “bears the unmistakable stamp of truth.”63 Such praise is
extremely important as it proposes that the author agrees with the point of view Graves had and
submits judgements that his story stands out amongst the rest. This idea emphasizes the impact
of Graves’ writing on society’s understanding of the war at the time because readers identified
with what he said and saw it as truthful to their experience.
Graves’ poetry was, like Owen’s and Sassoon’s, some of the more critical of Britain’s
involvement in the war. What made Graves unique though was actually what happened years
later. The introduction of Goodbye to All That into the World War I narrative demonstrated just
how much the war effected soldiers’ minds. In describing his own experience with shell shock
19and injuries in a candid manner, Graves was telling the story of more than just himself. Rather, in
historical memory, Graves told the story of millions of soldiers who experienced what he did. In
this way, it is his autobiography that heavily impacted readers rather than his poetry. His ability
to create a lasting memory for both soldiers at the time, and generations to come distinguishes
his work from Brooke. Sassoon and Owen. In this way, Graves impacted public opinion of
Britain’s involvement in WWI for generations to come.
Brooke, Sassoon, Owen, and Graves each utilized their poetic lens to establish their
opinion on the First World War in different ways. Each of these poetic lenses had distinct effects
on their British readers and pointed to a specific opinion of the war that they each held. Brooke’s
poetry demonstrates the pro-war sentiments of many people in Great Britain at the start of the
war. He utilized particularly patriotic language which appealed to many readers at the time who
believed that Britain was right to go to war with Germany. Furthermore, in his life and poems,
Brooke demonstrated all of the makings of a proper Englishman. This was to believe in your
country and its ideals enough to lay down your life for them. Such a narrative appealed heavily
to young people who were eager to show their worth and fight for their country, and as a result,
Brooke’s poetry exemplifies the larger cultural attitudes towards war at the time in Britain. It
shows an innocence at the start of the war that was soon lost with Sassoon, Owen, and Graves,
and which might have been lost in Brooke had he survived. Even so, Brooke’s optimism and
patriotism were not accidental. His poems aimed to speak to this generation of young
Englishmen and put forth the idea that the war was justified. As a result, his poetry was widely
produced in Great Britain and consumed at the start of the war, thus impacting public opinion I a
much more positive way that that of Sassoon, Owen, and Graves.64
20While Siegfried Sassoon’s experience began very similarly to Brooke’s, its results were
vastly different. Sassoon instead chose to use his poetry as a tool to demonstrate the wrongdoing
of the British government in prolonging the war. This is particularly evident in his letter to a
commanding officer where he makes accusations that the government wants the war to continue.
Sassoon went even further in his poetry to utilize satire as a way to establish these points. In
doing so, Sassoon represented an important shift in war poetry of the time and in his attitude
towards it. Sassoon was no longer the patriot Englishman who won a medal for Bravery and
blindly followed his command. Instead, he was going to take a stand against these innocent
ideals. Where much of Owen’s and Graves’ work was published toward the tail end of the war,
Sassoon’s criticization of the war occurs earlier. The push back that Sassoon’s poetry received
demonstrates that he was amongst the first to do so successfully and in many ways, his poetry
may have paved the way for Owen’s and Graves’ work to be received by the public. It is not
uncommon that the earliest examples of a shift in public opinion are met with hostility, but
Sassoon did not let up. As a result, his poetry became better received towards the end of the war
and in the years after its end, suggesting that he did in fact, influence public outlook on British
involvement in the war.
Owen’s descriptions and honest depiction of the British soldier distinguish him from
Sassoon because he was able to do so without as much push back. In fact, his painstakingly
accurate and detailed descriptions of the horrors of the trenches were particularly popular at the
time and have been since. Owen expressed his disdain for blind patriotism and those who pushed
young men off to war but also created poems that soldiers were able to relate to. As public
approval for the war declined, Owen’s poems gained popularity and were more widely produced,
appearing in the London Times and the Manchester Guardian.65 Rather than being divisive like
21Sassoon’s satire, Owen’s descriptions created memorials to the fallen soldiers he wrote about in
a similar way to that of Graves.
Graves’ poetry often alluded to his distaste for war and by extension, British involvement
in it. It is his book Goodbye to All That that marks a distinct departure from that of Owen. This
book’s detail about Grave’s experience with the horrors of the war and his journey in coming to
terms with those horrors incorporates the experience of soldiers both during the war and after.
These experiences establish a new perspective on the war that did not aim to stop the war, as it
was already over, but to understand it. This is an important and final step to this process. In
understanding and interpreting the phycological remnants of the war for soldiers, Graves is
establishing a narrative by which the war will be remembered. As a result, Graves’ work
continues to impact his readers’ understanding of the war and its legacy as he informs the reader
of its long-term impacts.
It was through the works of Brooke, Sassoon, Owens, and Graves that we remember the
war. Their poems not only display the experience of the British soldier at the time, but also
provide snapshots into the progression of opinions about the war. Their poems shine light on an
important truth; people became more and more disillusioned with the war as time went on. The
public then received this poetry in a manner that reflected their own opinions about the war. This
is a major reason that these poets fall where they do. Brooke, who was famous early, gave pro-
war sentiments. Sassoon dealt with the prolonged suffering of the war while Owens attempted to
demonstrate its horror. Finally, Graves attempts to understand how to deal with the aftermath of
the fight and the psychological toll it took on him. Each attempt to demonstrate their unique
experience for the time and as a result, others were interested in their work. The fact that each of
these poets represents a snapshot of their time then impacts current reader’s memory of the war.
22Rather than considering it to be a singular and linear fight, the war seems to be, like humans,
constantly changing. It is more complex and fluctuating than a simple black and white picture
might suggest. Instead, this poetry allowed a space for soldiers to express their pain and for the
general public to recognize it. As a result, these works may be useful to better understand the
effects of war on the human brain and also the way in which that brain develops over time. In
this way, the soldier poets of the First World War push our understanding of the impacts of war
both on society, and on individuals.
23Bibliography
A. Barış Ağır. "The Death of Patriotism: Wilfred Owen’s Dulce Et Decorum Est as an Anti-War
Manifesto." Tarih Kültür Ve Sanat Araştırmaları Dergisi 2, no. 2 (2013): 212-20.
"An Officer's Protest." The Manchester Guardian (Manchester, England), July 31, 1917.
Araujo, Anderson D. "Jessie Pope, Wilfred Owen, and the Politics of Pro Patria Mori in World
War I Poetry." Media, War & Conflict 7, no. 3 (2014): 326-41.
Atenstaedt, R.L. "The Medical Response to Trench Nephritis in World War One." Kidney
International 70, no. 4 (2006): 635.
Barber, Christopher Ernest. "The “Revolution” of the Franco‐Prussian War: The Aftermath in
Western Europe." Australian Journal of Politics & History 60, no. 3 (2014): 334-45.
Belbin, Eunice. "Effects of Propaganda on Recall, Recognition and Behavior." British Journal of
Psychology 47, no. 3 (1956): 163-74.
"Blasphemy or Poetic License: Mr. Siegfried Sassoon's Work in Court." The Times (London,
England), December 8, 1921.
Brooke, Rupert. “The Soldier.” In World War One British Poets; Brooke, Owen, Sassoon,
Rosenberg and others, edited by Candace Ward, 21-22, New York: Dover Publications,
1997.
Carletti, T. "How to Make an Efficient Propaganda." EPL (Europhysics Letters) 74, no. 2 (2006):
222-28.
"Death of Mr. Rupert Brooke." The Times (London, England), April 26, 1915.
Desmond, MacCarthy, "Goodbye to All That: Robert Graves," The Observer (London, England),
February 9, 1930.
24Egremont, Max. Siegfried Sassoon : A Life. 1st American ed. New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux, 2005.
Eksteins, Modris. Rites of spring: The Great War and the birth of the modern age. Toronto:
Vintage Canada, 2012.
"Ex-Officer's Appeal to Premier: The Right to Work." The Manchester Guardian, February 7,
1929.
Fussell, Paul. The Great War and Modern Memory. New York: Oxford University Press, 1975.
"Goodbye to All That: An Autobiography by Robert Graves." The Observer (London, England),
December 8, 1929.
Graves, Robert. Goodbye to all that. Vail-Ballou Press, 1930.
Graves, Robert. “The Next War.” In World War One British Poets; Brooke, Owen, Sassoon,
Rosenberg and others, edited by Candace Ward. 21-22, New York: Dover Publications.
1997.
"Ireland: Ulster Volunteers Enlist for Active Service." The Manchester Guardian (Manchester,
England), September 7, 1914.
Isherwood, Ian. "The British Publishing Industry and Commercial Memories of the First World
War." War in History 23, no. 3 (2016): 323-40.
Laskowski, William E. Rupert Brooke. Twayne's English Authors Series Rupert Brooke. Place
of Publication Not Identified: Twayne, 1994.
MacCarthy, Desmond. "Goodbye to All That: Robert Graves." The Observer (London, England),
February 9, 1930.
Mcgowan, Patrick J., and Bohdan Kordan. "Imperialism in World-System Perspective: Britain
1870-1914." International Studies Quarterly 25, no. 1 (1981): 43-68.
25“Mr. Sassoon's Poems.” The Times Literary Review, 31 May 1917.
"Mr. Sassoon's Poetry: Newspaper Manager Acquitted." The Times (London, England), February
24, 1922.
“Mr. Siegfried Sassoon: Poet, Fox Hunter, Soldier and Pacifist.” The Times, 4 Sept. 1967.
Norgate, Paul. "Wilfred Owen and the Soldier Poets." The Review of English Studies 40, no. 160
(1989): 516-30.
"One of the Georgians." The Manchester Guardian (Manchester, England), December 10, 1917.
Owen, Wilfred. “Anthem for Doomed Youth.” In World War One British Poets; Brooke, Owen,
Sassoon, Rosenberg and others, edited by Candace Ward. 21-22, New York: Dover
Publications. 1997.
Owen, Wilfred. “Dulce Et Decorum Est.” In World War One British Poets; Brooke, Owen,
Sassoon, Rosenberg and others, edited by Candace Ward, 21-22, New York: Dover
Publications, 1997.
Parker, Percy L. "The World's Fiat." The Manchester Guardian (Manchester, England), August
21, 1914.
Pope, Jessie. “Comrades in Arm-Lets.” 1914.
Pope, Jessie. “The War Budget.” 1914.
Sassoon, Siegfried. “Stand to: Good Friday Mourne.” In World War One British Poets; Brooke,
Owen, Sassoon, Rosenberg and others, edited by Candace Ward, 21-22, New York:
Dover Publications, 1997.
Smith, Angela K. "How to Remember: War, Armistice and Memory in Post-1918 British
Fiction." Journal of European Studies 45, no. 4 (2015): 301-15.
26Spiers, Edward M. "The British Centennial Commemoration of the First World War." Comillas
Journal of International Relations, no. 2 (2015): 73-85.
Stockmann, Daniela. "Who Believes Propaganda? Media Effects during the Anti-Japanese
Protests in Beijing." The China Quarterly, no. 202 (2010): 269-89.
Ward, Candace. World War One British poets: Brooke, Owen, Sassoon, Rosenberg, and others.
Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 1997.
"Wilfred Owen's Poems." The Manchester Guardian (Manchester, England), December 29,
1920.
271
Christopher Ernest Barber, "The “Revolution” of the Franco‐Prussian War: The Aftermath in
Western Europe," Australian Journal of Politics & History 60, no. 3 (2014): 334-45.
2
R.L. Atenstaedt, "The Medical Response to Trench Nephritis in World War One," Kidney
International 70, no. 4 (2006): 635.
3
Ibid, 635.
4
Modris Eksteins, Rites of spring: The Great War and the birth of the modern age. Toronto:
Vintage Canada, 2012. 117.
5
Paul Fussell, The Great War and Modern Memory. New York: Oxford University Press, 1975,
63.
6
Modris Eksteins, 117
7
Ibid, 117.
8
Ibid, 117.
9
Percy L., Parker, "The World's Fiat," The Manchester Guardian (Manchester, England),
August 21, 1914, 7.
10
"Ireland: Ulster Volunteers Enlist for Active Service," The Manchester Guardian (Manchester,
England), September 7, 1914, 6
11
Ibid, 6.
12
Patrick J. Mcgowan, and Bohdan Kordan, "Imperialism in World-System Perspective: Britain
1870-1914," International Studies Quarterly 25, no. 1 (1981): 43-68.
13
Anderson D. Araujo, "Jessie Pope, Wilfred Owen, and the Politics of Pro Patria Mori in World
War I Poetry," Media, War & Conflict 7, no. 3 (2014): 337.
14
Modris Eksteins, 117
15
Candace Ward, World War One British poets: Brooke, Owen, Sassoon, Rosenberg, and others,
Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, 1997, 1.
16
William E. Laskowski, Rupert Brooke, Twayne's English Authors Series Rupert Brooke, Place
of Publication Not Identified: Twayne, 1994, 1.
17
Ibid, 3.
18
Ibid, 3.
19
Ibid, 5.
20
Rupert, Brooke, “The Soldier,” In World War One British Poets; Brooke, Owen, Sassoon,
Rosenberg and others, edited by Candace Ward, 21-22, New York: Dover Publications, 1997, 1.
21
Ibid., 2.
22
Ibid., 3.
23
Ibid., 3.
24
Candace, Ward, 1.
25
"Death of Mr. Rupert Brooke," The Times (London, England), April 26, 1915, 1.
26
Ian Isherwood, "The British Publishing Industry and Commercial Memories of the First World
War," War in History 23, no. 3 (2016): 323-40.
27
"Death of Mr. Rupert Brooke," The Times (London, England), April 26, 1915, 1.
28
Ibid., 1.
29
Ian Isherwood, 323-40.
30
Candace Ward, 1.
2831
Max Egremont, Siegfried Sassoon: A Life, 1st American ed. New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux, 2005.
32
Ibid., 25.
33
Candace Ward, 1.
34
Max Egremont, 30.
35
"An Officer's Protest," The Manchester Guardian (Manchester, England), July 31, 1917, 6.
36
"An Officer's Protest," The Manchester Guardian (Manchester, England), July 31, 1917, 6.
37
“Mr. Sassoon's Poems,” The Times Literary Review, 31 May 1917, 259.
38
Ibid., 259.
39
Ibid., 259.
40
“Mr. Siegfried Sassoon: Poet, Fox Hunter, Soldier and Pacifist,” The Times, 4 Sept. 1967, 10.
41
Siegfried Sassoon, “Stand to: Good Friday Mourne,” In World War One British Poets; Brooke,
Owen, Sassoon, Rosenberg and others, edited by Candace Ward, 21-22, New York: Dover
Publications, 1997, 1.
42
"Blasphemy or Poetic Liscence: Mr. Siegfried Sassoon's Work in Court," The Times (London,
England), December 8, 1921, 9.
43
"Mr. Sassoon's Poetry: Newspaper Manager Acquitted," The Times (London, England),
February 24, 1922, 9.
44
Paul Norgate, "Wilfred Owen and the Soldier Poets," The Review of English Studies 40, no.
160 (1989): 516-30.
45
Ibid., 517.
46
Candace, Ward, 18.
47
Ibid., 18.
48
Ibid., 18.
49
"Wilfred Owen's Poems," The Manchester Guardian (Manchester, England), December 29,
1920,1.
50
Wilfred, Owen, “Anthem for Doomed Youth,” In World War One British Poets; Brooke,
Owen, Sassoon, Rosenberg and others, edited by Candace Ward, 21-22, New York: Dover
Publications, 1997, 22.
51
"Wilfred Owen's Poems," The Manchester Guardian (Manchester, England), December 29,
1920,1.
52
Wilfred Owen, “Dulce Et Decorum Est,” In World War One British Poets; Brooke, Owen,
Sassoon, Rosenberg and others, edited by Candace Ward, 21-22, New York: Dover Publications,
1997, 22.
53
Ibid., 22.
54
"Ex-Officer's Appeal to Premier: The Right to Work," The Manchester Guardian, February 7,
1929, 7.
55
Ibid., 7.
56
Robert Graves, Goodbye to all that, Vail-Ballou Press, 1930.
57
Ibid., 56.
58
Ibid., 127.
59
Robert Graves, “The Next War,” In World War One British Poets; Brooke, Owen, Sassoon,
Rosenberg and others, edited by Candace Ward, 21-22, New York: Dover Publications, 1997.
60
"One of the Georgians," The Manchester Guardian (Manchester, England), December 10,
1917, 3.
2961
Robert Graves, 57.
62
"Goodbye to All That: An Autobiography by Robert Graves," The Observer (London,
England), December 8, 1929, 4.
63
Desmond MacCarthy, "Goodbye to All That: Robert Graves," The Observer (London,
England), February 9, 1930, 6.
64
Ian Isherwood, 323-40.
65
"Wilfred Owen's Poems," The Manchester Guardian (Manchester, England), December 29,
1920,1.
30You can also read
